which party protected our homes more in recession?

chucky

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Forcing house prices downwards??? In the previous busts, nobody forced house prices down.

ok. fair point. as you can see times are little bit different now.

how about allow prices to fall too much?
does that sound better?

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's not a question of allowing it to happen, it's the absence of any solutions. The government could make more loans but I think it's very unlikely given by 2012-2014 they'll be reducing the deficit and looking to unwind the bank bailout guarantees etc too.

I'm sure the government accepts that protecting the housing market is important, but not at the expense of our currency (QE + ZIRP) and reducing the deficit in the future (continuing bailouts and guarantees like the CML one).

so because there is no solution for something that needs to be solved by 2012-2014 now - there isn't going to be a solution. great logic.

i'm looking to go on a 3-month holiday in 2012, i don't know the itinerary yet. does that mean i'm not going to go...

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

so because there is no solution for something that needs to be solved by 2012-2014 now - there isn't going to be a solution. great logic.

It's not me that's worrying, it's the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

They can't foresee any commercial or retail deposits replacing the government scheme, even with 2 years to prepare.

Ring them up and tell them where to procure the money...because they don't know.

The_White_Horse

Dan: wrote: »

lifes not fair mate.

that is my point, and what labour fail to realise.

ninky_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Forcing house prices downwards??? In the previous busts, nobody forced house prices down.

but government policy does influence surely?

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's not me that's worrying, it's the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

They can't foresee any commercial or retail deposits replacing the government scheme, even with 2 years to prepare.

Ring them up and tell them where to procure the money...because they don't know.

i understand the issue with the CML - it's a bit of a political game with them as they are shouting about this because their member don't want the extra capital requirements that will be implemented. which as you say if they are implemented it will reduce the amount of money that they can lend.

the capital requirments are going to be watered down or implemented gradually and not at the level that are being shouted about otherwise it will freeze the money markets again. it's just not going to happen.

you've taken the worst case scenario and expecting it to happen without any other options.

kabayiri

ninky wrote: »

but government policy does influence surely?

The state owning a major chunk of the retail banks influences lending and reposession policy I would suggest...

The Conservative lot didn't have this in their armoury, it's true.

MissMoneypenny

ninky wrote: »

but government policy does influence surely?

I doubt that house prices will be a governments number one priority considering what an uphill task the next government have.

Boom and bust seems to be part of the British culture. Some people win and some people lose.

Malcolm.

Kohoutek wrote: »

I'm sure the government accepts that protecting the housing market is important, but not at the expense of our currency (QE + ZIRP) and reducing the deficit in the future (continuing bailouts and guarantees like the CML one).

To the contrary young padawan. One might assume the government wants sterling to devalue.

ninky_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I doubt that house prices will be a governments number one priority considering what an uphill task the next government have.

er, i think they'll be pretty up there. a severe hpc would impact on every area of the economy / society.